Africa Development, Volume XXXIX, No. 1, 2014, pp. 93-124 © Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, 2014 (ISSN 0850-3907) On the Problematic State of Economic ‘Science’ Lansana Keita* Abstract Economics is arguably the most important social science on account of its fundamental and valuational role in human decision-making. Accordingly, it is a fit discipline for probing analysis. In its present dominant configuration as ‘neoclassical economics’, it presents itself as a species of engineering thereby ignoring its evolutionary history. An examination of such will reveal that economics was and is most cognitively comprehensible in its guise as ‘political economy’. Economics’ transition to ‘economic science’ can be best explained by the mathematisation of the empirical world by empirical science and an ideologically derived attempt to evade the serious sociological and political implications of macroscopic political economy as was evidenced in the works of the classical political economists including Marx. The new approach was founded on an abstract and individualised decision-making with little relevance to the real world. Thus the important issues concerning human welfare, equity and the decisive role that politics plays in economic decision-making were all regarded as irrelevant to neoclassical economic theory. A now-dominant neoclassical economic theory means that it has become standard academic fare in African universities. Given the ideological role that neoclassical economics plays in the ongoing pillage du tiers monde, new and revived counter-theses are necessary for more effective economic analysis. Resumé L’économie est sans doute la plus importante des branches de la science sociale en raison de son rôle fondamental et de son importance dans la prise de décision humaine. En conséquence, elle est une discipline appro- priée pour l’analyse profonde. Dans sa configuration dominante actuelle en tant qu’ « économie néoclassique », elle se présente comme une espèce de génie ignorant ainsi son histoire évolutive. Un tel examen révélera que *Professor of Economics and Philosophy, Kwara State University, Nigeria. Email: [email protected] 6 - keita - On the Problematic State of Economic 'Science.indd 93 08/06/2014 16:59:39 94 Africa Development, Volume XXXIX, No. 1, 2014 l’économie était et est une pensée plus compréhensible dans sa forme en tant qu’ « économie politique ». La transition de l’économie vers « la science économique » peut être mieux expliquée par la mathématisation du monde empirique par la science empirique et par une tentative idéo- logique dérivée pour échapper aux graves conséquences sociologiques et politiques de l’économie politique macroscopique comme démontré dans les travaux des économistes politiques classiques y compris Marx. La nouvelle approche a été fondée sur une prise de décision abstraite et individualisée avec peu de pertinence pour le monde réel. Ainsi, les questions importantes concernant le bien-être humain, l’équité et le rôle décisif que joue la politique dans la prise de décision économique étaient tous considérés comme étant sans apport à la théorie économique néo- classique. Maintenant une théorie économique néoclassique dominante, elle est devenue une norme académique standard dans les universités africaines. Selon le rôle idéologique que joue l’économie néoclassique dans le pillage continue du Tiers Monde, des antithèses nouvelles et ravi- vées sont nécessaires pour une analyse économique plus efficace. Introduction The founder of modern macroeconomics, John Maynard Keynes, known for his often pithy remarks, once (1936) noted that the ideas of economists were much more influential than is usually thought. In fact, according to Keynes, the ideas of economists govern the world. The truth is that economics is essentially about human decision-making, choice, and opportunity costs, which are all part of the set of asymmetric constraints that constrict human action. Humans live in a world of ideas that directly and indirectly influence their choices and subsequent actions. On account of this, individuals known as economists have developed theories according to which optimal choices regarding the world’s resource banks are to made. So in this scramble for finite resources where human wants are unbounded, economic theories of optimality are bound to be varied. The now dominant neoclassical economics paradigm views the human decision-making through the theoretical lenses of individualistic rather than group optimality. Over decades and centuries, this has set up an essential and necessary tension between theories of equity and efficiency. This tension has been playing out now for centuries ever since the birth of modern economics. But the neoclassical paradigm has assumed dominance for some time now. It treats economic decision-making as a species of engineering without much regard to the evolutionary history of economics and the strident contentiousness of economic issues in the context of political wrangling. As a paradigm focused principally on 6 - keita - On the Problematic State of Economic 'Science.indd 94 08/06/2014 16:59:40 Keïta: On the Problematic State of Economic ‘Science’ 95 individual choice, social issues of equity are solved by the constraining principle of a non-egalitarian Pareto optimality. The contemporary global reach of neoclassical economics is such that in a world of a very uneven distribution of resources and wealth, students of economics in those areas most affected by the worldview of neoclassical economics are made to understand economics just in those terms. This is the case with the instruction of economics in contemporary Africa. Economics as an evolutionary discipline is evidently the optimal way to comprehend real human choice within society. This is not the approach in the African university in general. In a Gini coefficient diagram reflecting the world distribution of wealth and human welfare, African populations will occupy the rank of the least beneficiaries. Such facts are not seriously debated in core courses of university education in Africa. Marx made some interesting points about the way economies are structured within the context of real economic decision-making, and political and sociological wrangling. The ostensible purpose of instruction in economics in contemporary Africa is merely to train individuals to become bureaucratic factotums of international capital for the benefits of the 10 per cent of corporations and individuals to whom 80 per cent of the world’s wealth accrues. This situation needs attention on the basis of issues not only of efficiency but equity. In what follows I propose to unpack the innards of economics as social science to determine in what ways it could be subject to criticism so as to open the floor for discussion by those who may be skeptical about the way this discipline is dispensed in contemporary times. On Economics as ‘Science’ Of all the social sciences economics is evidently the most comprehensive because all the other social sciences depend fundamentally on the economic activity of humans. The other social sciences implicitly have economics as a base. One recalls, of course, that the social sciences came into being in the same fashion as the natural sciences. As testable empirical knowledge grew, ‘natural philosophy’ morphed into ‘natural science’. It was the same with what was called ‘moral philosophy’ which became ‘the moral sciences’, then eventually the ‘social sciences’. Empirical natural science defines itself as the analysis of the natural empirical world according to the certifiable content of that world and its seeming regularities, usually called ‘laws’. Given the fact that the studied empirical objects of the natural world were assumed to have no intrinsic motive forces, their Aristotelian vis viva was then discarded. To 6 - keita - On the Problematic State of Economic 'Science.indd 95 08/06/2014 16:59:41 96 Africa Development, Volume XXXIX, No. 1, 2014 understand the actions and behaviour of empirical phenomena, all that was needed for scientific analysis was just static and dynamic analysis. Out of these repeatable observations, measurable principles and laws could be established. As science advanced, the observed behaviour of humans also became a fit subject for empirical analysis. Thus, as was noted, the moral sciences became the social sciences, known too as the human sciences. But there was a double problematic. Humans could not be subjected to the strict laboratory data control as with the natural and biological sciences. Thus, in this instance, the natural sciences requirement of prediction with its concomitant explanations could not be realised. Once the prediction and explanation of phenomena were possible, the issue of control of the observed phenomena naturally followed. In fact, this is the normal path for medically curative research. In the case of the social sciences which dealt with the behavioural choices of humans, the predictive aspects of social science theory was thereby compromised. The social sciences can often offer plausible explanations for social phenomena but in terms of prediction there is an evident weakness. The second problematic is more important because it involves an issue not germane to the natural sciences. Human behaviour is characterised not only by overt behaviour but also by subjective motives and reasons. This dual consideration is not applicable to natural science phenomena. The problematic here is that in order to explain the